Nov 202014
 
A Venn diagram illustrating one of the weaknesses of the Turing test. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A Venn diagram illustrating one of the weaknesses of the Turing test. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Researcher develops test to assess a computer’s capacity for human-level intelligence through its ability to create rather than to converse or deceive

A Georgia Tech professor recently offered an alternative to the celebrated “Turing Test” to determine whether a machine or computer program exhibits human-level intelligence. The Turing Test – originally called the Imitation Game – was proposed by computing pioneer Alan Turing in 1950. In practice, some applications of the test require a machine to engage in dialogue and convince a human judge that it is an actual person.

Creating certain types of art also requires intelligence observed Mark Riedl, an associate professor in the School of Interactive Computing at Georgia Tech, prompting him to consider if that might lead to a better gauge of whether a machine can replicate human thought.

“It’s important to note that Turing never meant for his test to be the official benchmark as to whether a machine or computer program can actually think like a human,” Riedl said. “And yet it has, and it has proven to be a weak measure because it relies on deception. This proposal suggests that a better measure would be a test that asks an artificial agent to create an artifact requiring a wide range of human-level intelligent capabilities.”

To that end, Riedl has created the Lovelace 2.0 Test of Artificial Creativity and Intelligence.

For the test, the artificial agent passes if it develops a creative artifact from a subset of artistic genres deemed to require human-level intelligence and the artifact meets certain creative constraints given by a human evaluator. Further, the human evaluator must determine that the object is a valid representative of the creative subset and that it meets the criteria. The created artifact needs only meet these criteria but does not need to have any aesthetic value. Finally, a human referee must determine that the combination of the subset and criteria is not an impossible standard.

Take me to the complete story . . .  

 

Leave a Reply